11 ms·
Do you have an actual figure in mind when you write "With the transition to clean energy"? The reality is much much more bleak, you're looking at a very small c
by polotics 3y ago
Do you have an actual figure in mind when you write "With the transition to clean energy"? The reality is much much more bleak, you're looking at a very small chunk of total energy consumption that's using renewable, coal has only been going up and up the past years, and how sustainable the new renewables (non hydro) will be in a world not propped-up by cheap fossil fuels remains to be tested. I was hoping Bloomberg would call a spade a spade and acknowledge a guess of the real humans-carrying capacity of spaceship earth once it stops running on fumes... My guess: one tenth of our current peak.
- dalyons 3y agoThere are reasons to be hopeful : https://patrickcollison.com/solar https://patrickcollison.com/solar https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/our-climate-change-debates-are-out https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/our-climate-change-debates-are... We will replace most fossil fuels with solar. Will it be in time? Maybe not, but it’s not hopeless.
- Projectiboga 3y agoOur planet was 20 degrees warmer overall that last time the CO2 levels were over 420ppm. And the level of rise over the recent past is totally unprecedented. Climate zones are moving tens of miles per decade north, far faster than forests can adapt. Things are going to get very crazy and the hunan population won't just decline gradually.
- CatWChainsaw 3y agoNoahpinion's self-admitted optimism bias towards solar and batteries is unhelpful hopium. (and drive-by downvoting is copium, Noah! :P)
- alfor 3y agoLook into Tony Seba work. The transition is on an expodential path, most prediction are simple linear. Solar + wind + batteries are going to displace almost everything in the next 10 years.
- Empact 3y agoNuclear power is the most significant opportunity for clean energy. If we implement it fully, as e.g. France has, I don’t see a reason we can’t achieve abundant clean energy.
- throwbadubadu 3y agoInteresting that France's nuclear failure is still brought as argument for the opposite?
- polotics 3y agoYou're going to have to be more specific as to what you call a failure... Closing the Fessenheim plant even though it was in perfect condition, safe, and very useful, just for base politician reasons... is this maybe what you mean? If you count the MWh/€, the excellent safety records, it's hard to see the failure. Maybe the slow production of an EPR reactor, the giving up on efforts towards 4th-gen reactors?
- jangxx 3y agoThey might be referring to the fact that France had to import electrical power from Germany last year (which was made with coal and natural gas), because the rivers they used to cool their reactors didn't carry enough water anymore due to a drought.
- throwbadubadu 3y agoBasically everything you can find easily by googling.. so hat, their failed maintenance outages failed, their failed (or just too expensive) planning for their future capacities (too much in time and money) and the general concept not being fit for the future on many other aspects.
- polotics 3y agoI am sorry you are not very well informed. The reason France had to import was an extreme abundance of caution: one corrosion case on a safety circuit, not even the main circuit, leading to complete stop and overhaul of all plants having the same design. There are plenty of chemical plants with less paranoia...